Re: supporting TX_EXE

On Mar 7, 4:27 pm, Jonas Sicking <[email protected]> wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Hello,
> > I'm working on a fix for bugzilla 94270 -- adding support for
> > namespaces.
>
> > I see a lot of #ifdef / #ifndef TX_EXE in the transformiix code. I'm
> > wondering whether I need to write the code to work with the assumption
> > that TX_EXE is defined, or isn't defined, or both.
> > Peter VdB's patch athttps://bugzilla.mozilla.org/attachment.cgi?id=149205
> > seems to be written for the case where TX_EXE is not defined.
>
> > Based onhttp://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Building_TransforMiiX_standalone,
> > I get the impression that TX_EXE indicates a standalone build?
>
> > Looking athttp://www.nabble.com/checkout---build-TransforMiiX-(standalone)-t181...,
> > it sounds like the standalone build is not really supported anymore.
> > (There doesn't seem to be a reply to that message.)
>
> > So... can I assume TX_EXE will not be defined? Seems like a fair bit
> > more work if I have to code for both possibilities. (Especially
> > research... and I'm brand-new to Tx.)
>
> This is really up to the module owner, peterv, to decide. But my
> oppinion is that if you write a module-only (i.e. one where TX_EXE is
> not defined) we'll take that. As long as you don't break standalone
> (TX_EXE is defined) more than it already is.
>
> / Jonas

Thanks... I'll go with that!

Does PeterV read this list? His last post was Nov. 27 2006.
Lars